Nassanga v Rwamutembani and Another (Civil Application No. 714 of 2022)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Court of Appeal considered an application to commit the respondents to civil prison for contempt of an interim order preserving the status quo over disputed land. Applying the three-element test for civil contempt — existence of a clear and unambiguous order, actual knowledge of it, and intentional disobedience — the Court found that since the respondents had been resident on the land for over forty years and the order required only that the status quo be maintained, their reconstruction of a few unipots to shelter and safeguard their property did not amount to intentional disobedience of a lawful order. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed

Facts

The respondents had filed Civil Application No. 555 of 2022 against the applicant seeking an interim stay of execution. On 26 August 2022 the Court delivered a ruling preserving the status quo of the suit land pending disposal of Civil Appeal No. 343. The applicant subsequently brought this application alleging the respondents had defied the order by reconstructing unipots on the suit land, assisted by security personnel provided by the Chief Administrative Officer of Kabale District. The respondents replied that, of the twelve unipots originally in the survey camp before alleged unlawful demolition by the applicant and her agents, six had been re-erected to provide shelter and to safeguard their property from theft and exposure. They asserted they had lived on and derived sustenance from the land for more than forty years, having been given it by the government, and remained in continuous possession. Neither party filed written submissions.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order of 26 August 2022 preserving the status quo of the suit land.

Orders

• The application is dismissed for lack of merit.
• Costs abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.32(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.42(1)(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44
• Constitution of Uganda Article 128(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 128(3)

Cases cited (4)

• Lukenge Hakeem v Namagembe and Others (Civil Application No. 290 of 2020)
• Hon. Sitenda Sebalu V Secretary General of the East African Community No.8 Of 2012
• Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER
• Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.